Wall Street Journal Will Soon Start Charging iPhone Users
Say farewell to the free Wall Street Journal on the iPhone.
According to Paid Content, News Corp’s Rupert Murdoch announced that readers of the WSJ on the Blackberry and iPhone will be charged $2 per week for the privilege of reading news through the respective apps. Online and print subscribers of the WSJ will only pay $1 a week. No time limit has been set yet, but Murdoch says it will be within the next few months.
The WSJ Mobile app ‘s App Store page has stated that access to ‘subscriber-only ‘ content would only be available without charge for a limited time, for as long as I can remember “ and there have been hints within the app at times as well.
I decided a while back that I was not going to get attached to the app for just this reason. I like the app plenty, but I don ‘t need its particular brand of news badly enough to pay $50-100 per year for it.
What about you all? Do you need “ or just enjoy “ the WSJ ‘s content enough to pay up when they switch over to charging for it?
Via: TUAW
No!! I think that's just overboard. It's pretty bold of them I think to charge for it. As if people only have iphones, and no access to computers. Most of their information can be found on the internet from other sources, so I just don't see it being worth the money.
I don't think it is a great move. The paper media is already dying out & I find all my news online now. All the major news networks: Fox News, CNN, & MSNBC don't charge to view their content. On my iPhone I am currently using AP News which has improved since the last update. BNO News is another paid alternative (cheaper than WSJ subscription). I think the paper news could use all the viewership they can get right now & by charging to view their content online is not going to help them.
I agree guys. I think the WSJ is the sort of title that can maybe get away with charging something – but not the sort of level being talked about right now.
I would easily pay $50 for the app if it came with unlimited access to the content, but I don't like the subscription model under which I, as a user, don't get ownership of anything.
Wow – $2/week? That is a lot. I think $1/week is more affordable. WSJ has been under a lot of criticism for its recent price hikes on its print copies, and this does seem to be along that same path.
It's one thing to charge for a newspaper, but it's another to charge for news received over a medium that could easily be used to find free news. I am all for newspapers finding revenue streams (it is the only thing that will sustain them), but charging a weekly subscription is probably not the best way to do things. A flat fee for a lifetime subscription is probably better.
I'd like to see newspapers find ways to survive and thrive too. LIke you though, I think this is not the right way. I'm not sure what their best option would be, but it's not this one.